Forum:Editorial Style
This topic is for editor thinking about various editorial issues, with an eye toward developing a Manual of Style and uniform editorial style for the wiki. --LeverageGuru 18:43, July 14, 2011 (UTC) Verb Tenses I think one decision that needs to be wiki-wide is the tense of the verbs in the articles. Do we want present (ie "Hardison is attracted to Parker.") or past (ie "Hardison was attracted to Parker." or even "Hardison had become attracted to Parker.")? Right now I see both in use in various places in the wiki, and I don't have a strong preference either way but I'd love to see it standardized. Thoughts? Tbug 18:17, July 2, 2011 (UTC) : I agree! I think the present tense works best; the episodes don't exist at a fixed point in time, but rather the present is whenever we watch them. To me, present generally reads best. I just wrote synopses for Season 2 and Season 3; I'll have to check them to be sure I've got them right. LeverageGuru 22:04, July 2, 2011 (UTC) Spelling I'm seeing some American spelling and some international spelling in the wiki. Do we care? Should we standardize/standardise? :) Tbug 15:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC) : We definitely care. This is an American show and we standardize in American English. LeverageGuru 18:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :: That makes sense. I'll edit that where I see it, then. Tbug 18:32, July 14, 2011 (UTC) Separate Pages Which things deserve their own pages? I'm thinking that if an editor shows up and wants to make a page about something relatively unimportant then that's cool, but I'm seeing a bunch of links around that go nowhere and wouldn't add particularly interesting details. Examples: various gems Parker has stolen, different nations that get mentioned in passing but that the team doesn't visit. My thought is to eliminate these links rather than creating stubs, but only if that meets with admin approval. Tbug 15:36, July 14, 2011 (UTC) : I've actually begun working on that, so great minds think alike. I just collapsed three articles about the various vans into one article on Hardison's vans (see updates on the main page), and plan to do the same thing with various cons, cities, Parker's gear and several others as well. I'm also on a patrol for red links, which are epidemic, and got rid of several superfluous redirects so as to unclutter the article list a bit. : We also don't need to be linking well-known cities, states and countries, which goes on regularly, much less have articles on them. An article on locations, covering Boston, Portland and LA will do it. The rest can be linked back to the wikipedia or similar if a location is obscure enough to merit the linking. : And while I'm venting, not every minor character needs an article. Sterling, Moreau, Latimer, yes. But every client and every mark? Not really. They can be described in the episode pages, and if more is needed, in an article on minor characters. A perfect example of a character that would do well in an article on minor characters is The Butcher of Kiev, who has a bit of a life beyond the article. : What do you think? I'm appreciative of your feedback and the opportunity to discuss my thinking with another editor. --LeverageGuru 18:40, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :: Clearly we're on the same page. Specific to minor characters (which I'm defining as a character who only appears in one episode) I think that having a tie to a character's past qualifies them for a page, or being a family member. The Butcher of Kiev is a great example. I'd even be okay with a page for a character who hasn't appeared but who gets mentioned and is of interest (eg Hardison's nana). :: I won't remove any pages someone else has put the time into making, but I'll get rid of inappropriate red links. Tbug 18:47, July 14, 2011 (UTC) ::: Go for it on the red links! I've been fairly ruthless, and I think the Wikipedia's rules of thumb about one link, notability of a link and not linking common topics/knowledge/locations, etc. make pretty good parameters for a yes/no decision. I'd wager perhaps 10 or 12 good red links are all that exist. ::: I think you've got good parameters on character descriptions there. Hardison's nana exists largely in dialogue; she'd do well with a mention in an article compiling similar characters, likewise Sam Ford, versus Maggie who is well-enough fleshed out and known to us that she merits her own article. My mental organizer at the moment is to ask whether I can write more than a substantive paragraph about a character (and if I can't, no one can, as self-aggrandizing as that might sound.) If I can't, no article. :::(BTW, I thought this discussion had grown enough that it merited its own subforum.) --LeverageGuru 18:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC) POV How widespread are POV comments in articles? Statements such as "it can be assumed that" or "it appears..." immediately suggestion someone's interpretation of events, and I'm not sure that's appropriate, even in an informal setting such as this, simply because what one of us sees, another might not. I'm curious what others' thoughts are. --LeverageGuru 19:00, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :Sometimes episodes imply stuff without stating it. I think that citing the evidence and following up with what the evidence appears to be saying seems okay. A lot of the Parker/Hardison relationship is this way, for example. :On the other hand, I just don't like "it can be assumed that" and will probably edit it out if it's in something I'm already editing. Tbug 19:09, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :: That's pretty much my thinking. I just removed the statement "It appears to be Sophie's favorite con" from the article on The Lost Heir, which I'm rewriting. I didn't have that impression particularly, and I'm watching The Three Horse Job as I write. ON the other hand, subtext such as with Nate and Sophie or Parker/Hardison can be explained by adding some description, and that should work nicely. --LeverageGuru 20:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC)